This Is Rival Talk v1.0

[MacReady]

Just now, KingOfTheNorth said:

Why does the amount of TDs matter into the label of "Turnover Machine"?  A TD doesn't washout a turnover

Because it's not quite fair comparing the turnover totals of Wentz/Cutler when Cutler had only two legit starting seasons. 

Wentz had 14 interceptions in his rookie year while starting every game.
Cutler had 5 interceptions in 5 games as a rookie.

Cutler averaged an interception a game before he was traded. 

Cutler had 14 and 18 interceptions in his second/third seasons starting while Wentz had 14 total interceptions in his second and third year. 

The year before Cutler was traded, Cutler had only three games in which he didn't throw an interception.  Cutler also had 6 double digit turnover games that year.  He turned the ball over a lot. 

Quote

Also, saying the Broncos won the trade because they won a Super Bowl 7 years later with Decker and Thomas on the team is weak. Not even going to get into this because it is nonsense.

You can say it's nonsense, but I can also say that the draft capital earned them two players who were integral in a Super Bowl win and they also got rid of Cutler. 

Broncos - Got rid of a QB who could not win a Super Bowl.  Instead of going with him, the Broncos got rid of him and thus had multiple chances at improving at QB, including not having Cutler in 2012 when Peyton Manning became a free agent. 

Bears - Got Cutler and went with him for 8 years.  They virtually had to keep him for the last two seasons because he was that could upgrade, can't upgrade range. 

If the Broncos don't make that trade, they do not win a Super Bowl.  That's not just because of Thomas/Decker, that's also because of the moves they made in response to having lost him. 

[KingOfTheNorth]

3 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Because it's not quite fair comparing the turnover totals of Wentz/Cutler when Cutler had only two legit starting seasons. 

Wentz had 14 interceptions in his rookie year while starting every game.
Cutler had 5 interceptions in 5 games as a rookie.

Cutler averaged an interception a game before he was traded. 

Cutler had 14 and 18 interceptions in his second/third seasons starting while Wentz had 14 total interceptions in his second and third year. 

The year before Cutler was traded, Cutler had only three games in which he didn't throw an interception.  Cutler also had 6 double digit turnover games that year.  He turned the ball over a lot. 

All this still comes to only 5 more turnovers than Wentz over 3 years. I am not disputing that Wentz is the better player. All I am saying, is that at the time of the trade, Cutler was perceived as a future elite QB. To say his value wouldn't be as high as Wentz because of 5 more turnovers over 40 games is highly debatable. You also aren't mentioning that Wentz tore his knee up in his 2nd year. Wouldn't that lower his trade value? Would Wentz and Cutlers value really be that much different considering Wentz is still not a year removed from ACL surgery?

 

8 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

You can say it's nonsense, but I can also say that the draft capital earned them two players who were integral in a Super Bowl win and they also got rid of Cutler. 

Broncos - Got rid of a QB who could not win a Super Bowl.  Instead of going with him, the Broncos got rid of him and thus had multiple chances at improving at QB, including not having Cutler in 2012 when Peyton Manning became a free agent. 

Bears - Got Cutler and went with him for 8 years.  They virtually had to keep him for the last two seasons because he was that could upgrade, can't upgrade range. 

If the Broncos don't make that trade, they do not win a Super Bowl.  That's not just because of Thomas/Decker, that's also because of the moves they made in response to having lost him. 

So if the Saints win the Super Bowl this year, the Packers lost that trade? I just think its a bad way to judge trades. You should be grading the individuals for their individual performance. Not the team performance. 

The Bears also used the draft pick they received from the broncos to select Johnny Knox. Knox was their leading WR for 2 of the 3 years he was with the Bears and showed significant promise. If not for a career ending injury one could argue his career would on par if not better than Decker or Thomas.

Overall, I don't dispute your notion that trading a QB at the height of their value could set a team up with compensation to start a dynasty. I just disagree that it has never been done before.

[MacReady]

Just now, KingOfTheNorth said:

So if the Saints win the Super Bowl this year, the Packers lost that trade? I just think its a bad way to judge trades. You should be grading the individuals for their individual performance. Not the team performance.

Draft pick trades really are a different thing altogether.  It's more about where the team would be if they had/hadn't made the trade.

The Bears would have had the 11th overall pick in 2010, 18th overall pick in 2009 if they didn't trade for Cutler.  That gets into hindsight, but overall, the Bears would not have been tied to a meh territory QB if they hadn't made the trade.  Who knows what they would have done?  The Broncos would have been tied to a meh QB if they hadn't made the trade.  We know they wouldn't have gotten Manning in 2012 if they hadn't traded Cutler in 2009. 

Regardless of what the Broncos got, they got rid of a QB who could not get it done, and in the long run they won. 

 

[KingOfTheNorth]

9 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Draft pick trades really are a different thing altogether.  It's more about where the team would be if they had/hadn't made the trade.

The Bears would have had the 11th overall pick in 2010, 18th overall pick in 2009 if they didn't trade for Cutler.  That gets into hindsight, but overall, the Bears would not have been tied to a meh territory QB if they hadn't made the trade.  Who knows what they would have done?  The Broncos would have been tied to a meh QB if they hadn't made the trade.  We know they wouldn't have gotten Manning in 2012 if they hadn't traded Cutler in 2009. 

Regardless of what the Broncos got, they got rid of a QB who could not get it done, and in the long run they won. 

 

In one sentence you say "Who knows what they would have done?" and the next you try to say what the Broncos would have done. How does that make sense? We have no idea what the Broncos would have done if they still had Cutler when Manning was available. Considering you have labeled Cutler as a QB who would never win a SB, why do you think the Broncos wouldn't go get Manning? Who would even be the coach at the time if they didn't trade Cutler? Do Cutler and McDaniels make up, and McDaniels turns Cutler into an All Pro? You are making assumptions based on hypothetical situations to determine the winner of a trade.

[MacReady]

Just now, KingOfTheNorth said:

In one sentence you say "Who knows what they would have done?" and the next you try to say what the Broncos would have done. How does that make sense? We have no idea what the Broncos would have done if they still had Cutler when Manning was available. Considering you have labeled Cutler as a QB who would never win a SB, why do you think the Broncos wouldn't go get Manning? Who would even be the coach at the time if they didn't trade Cutler? Do Cutler and McDaniels make up, and McDaniels turns Cutler into an All Pro? You are making assumptions based on hypothetical situations to determine the winner of a trade.

It's tough to pay Peyton Manning what they paid him with Cutler on the cap.  It's literally why the Bears kept him the last couple years.  That's my point.  Cutler's contract showed why the Broncos were able to go after Manning and the Bears weren't.

The Broncos either got something for him or they committed to him for the next 5-6 years like the Bears did. 

Having a meh QB signed to a contract like that is worse than having no QB at all. 

Cutler played for a hell of a lot of coaches and he never ascended beyond meh territory. 

[KingOfTheNorth]

1 minute ago, Outpost31 said:

It's tough to pay Peyton Manning what they paid him with Cutler on the cap.  It's literally why the Bears kept him the last couple years.  That's my point.  Cutler's contract showed why the Broncos were able to go after Manning and the Bears weren't.

The Broncos either got something for him or they committed to him for the next 5-6 years like the Bears did. 

Having a meh QB signed to a contract like that is worse than having no QB at all. 

Cutler played for a hell of a lot of coaches and he never ascended beyond meh territory. 

I can see your point here.

Only because I seen you have the Cowboys as one of the teams you think can win a SB, I have to ask. If the Cowboys go win it all, did they also win the Cooper trade?  

 

[vegas492]

2 minutes ago, KingOfTheNorth said:

I can see your point here.

Only because I seen you have the Cowboys as one of the teams you think can win a SB, I have to ask. If the Cowboys go win it all, did they also win the Cooper trade?  

 

I think that the Cooper trade is an outlier.  I don't think that Cooper was worth the trade. But...it is hard to argue against it as that seemed to be the moment that turned around the Boys season.  And the dude has flat out played good football for them.  Having a star running back that demands all the attention from the defense really helps.  Really, it would have helped anyone.

I hate that Jerruh is looking better and better with that trade with every game that goes by.  It really seems to have worked for them.  At least for this year.

[KingOfTheNorth]

7 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I think that the Cooper trade is an outlier.  I don't think that Cooper was worth the trade. But...it is hard to argue against it as that seemed to be the moment that turned around the Boys season.  And the dude has flat out played good football for them.  Having a star running back that demands all the attention from the defense really helps.  Really, it would have helped anyone.

I hate that Jerruh is looking better and better with that trade with every game that goes by.  It really seems to have worked for them.  At least for this year.

I agree. That trade made no sense to me and yet the team seems to be peaking with him in the lineup. What I do know is Cooper was playing some really bad football with the Raiders. So the Raiders were absolutely right to trade him for a 1st round pick. Even if they do nothing with that pick, it would match what they were getting with Cooper. I think in this case, both teams came out ahead in the trade. No clear winner, but no clear loser.

I really don't expect Outpost or anyone to have an answer, it was more of a "food for thought" type of thing.

[MacReady]

Just now, KingOfTheNorth said:

I can see your point here.

Only because I seen you have the Cowboys as one of the teams you think can win a SB, I have to ask. If the Cowboys go win it all, did they also win the Cooper trade?

I think that trade was a mistake due to positional value, but you can't deny the confidence boost it gave them.  I think the Cowboys could have turned it around without Cooper, but I'd have to admit that yes, they would have won the Cooper trade.  If the Cowboys win the Super Bowl, it will be because of that defense. 

With that Cooper trade, unless the Cowboys win a Super Bowl with Cooper, it was a terrible mistake.  Cooper is doing really well right now, but let's not forget he has gone through these types of flashes before only to turn into a 3 catch for 37 yard a game type receiver.  He's a very streaky player on a hot streak right now. 

Just look at his game logs:

http://www.nfl.com/player/amaricooper/2552487/gamelogs

Receptions/Yards

Raiders:
1/9
10/116
2/17
8/128
1/10

Cowboys:
5/58
6/75
3/36
8/180
8/76
10/217

Does that kind of production look like first round material? 

Look at 2017, too.  He had 5 games with 3 or less receptions for 28 or less yards.  Some of his games last year look like:

1/6, 2/9, 1/8, 1/9, 3/28.

This is something that has followed Cooper his entire career. 

His rookie year had games like:

1/4, 2/10, 2/20, 1/23...

This is going to continue. 

I'm a bottom line type of guy, so the bottom line is you're trying to win Super Bowls.  If you win a Super Bowl after making a trade and the other team doesn't, you've won the trade.  You got rid of a player that may have impacted your team negatively, you added players that were a part of a Super Bowl team...

If Cooper and the Cowboys win a Super Bowl, bottom line is they won the trade.  If not, they lost the trade.  If neither the Raiders nor Cowboys win a Super Bowl, the trade will come down to who the Raiders get versus how Cooper's hot/cold streak evolves over time. 

[KingOfTheNorth]

I am really surprised at how well the Cowboys defense is performing. I knew they were a solid group, but the addition of LVE seems to be the missing chess piece they needed. I heard numerous teammates talk about his Wolf howl and how amped it gets the whole team. Hell, it gets me amped up just watching them. Fun time to be a Cowboy fan.

[Howler]

26 minutes ago, KingOfTheNorth said:

I am really surprised at how well the Cowboys defense is performing. I knew they were a solid group, but the addition of LVE seems to be the missing chess piece they needed. I heard numerous teammates talk about his Wolf howl and how amped it gets the whole team. Hell, it gets me amped up just watching them. Fun time to be a Cowboy fan.

The Cowboys have been mining that Boise gold of late. 

[vegas492]

I think that most offenses work better when you can threaten the defense from different levels.  QB-arms and feet.  Great RB.  WR.  If you are lacking at one of those areas, the offense will be suspect.  In Dallas' case...they have Elliott.  A true franchise back.  Defenses could easily load the box and dare Prescott to beat him with those pedestrian WR's.  Cooper is making them pay for that kind of defense now.

Outpost is right about Cooper being streaky.  It is kind of what he does.  It is also true that the trade for Cooper has proven to be a win for that offense.

It will be interesting to see how they manage their cap with those guys.  They have a lot of good, younger players that need new deals.  Someone isn't going to make it.  Lawrence, Jaylen Smith, Prescott, Elliott, Cooper.  It isn't going to be easy.  The first they gave up for Cooper could have filled a hole.

It will be interesting to watch.

[Malfatron]

i think it mostly comes down to 2 tough games

green bay at chicago

miami vs minnesota

 

if both games go our way, i think the packers make the playoffs.

otherwise, i think its over

[packfanfb]

9 hours ago, KingOfTheNorth said:

I am really surprised at how well the Cowboys defense is performing. I knew they were a solid group, but the addition of LVE seems to be the missing chess piece they needed. I heard numerous teammates talk about his Wolf howl and how amped it gets the whole team. Hell, it gets me amped up just watching them. Fun time to be a Cowboy fan.

Two words. Pass.rush. Lawrence and Gregory are absolutely getting after it on the ends. Cowboys probably have the 2nd best front four pass rush in the conference right now next to the Bears. 

Outside of that its not just LVE but more so Jaylon Smith. He's becoming the player who was touted as a top 10 pick before his injury. Speed for days. 

[Norm]

Doug Pederson tries way too hard to be the "I hate the media" ******.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Norm